Definition Of Living And Non Living Thing

Definition of living things

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (i.e., living organisms) from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms (life forms) can be found in the biosphere on Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.
In philosophy and religion, the conception of life and its nature varies. Both offer interpretations as to how life relates to existence and consciousness, and both touch on many related issues, including life stance, purpose, conception of a god or gods, a soul or an afterlife.

Definition of non living things

Dead or not alive.Living is the condition of being alive. This refers to all plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria. Biologists have a set list of characteristics that can help determine whether an object is living. This list includes the ability to reproduce, the ability to grow, the ability to eat and the ability excrete waste, among other things.


Dead is the condition these objects enter when they are no longer alive. So, to be dead an object must once have been living.


Non-living is the condition of never being alive. Non-living could refer to inorganic matter. Rocks, for example are non-living. They are not dead, because they were never alive (as a rock, but they may contain chemicals that were once part of a living organism).


Now, those may sound fairly clear definitions at first glance. However, they are often too simplistic. Viruses for example cannot be clearly placed in any of these categories. A non-living object cannot, by definition, meet all of the requirements for being living, however they can meet SOME of the requirements. Where to draw the line is the source of much debate.


Similarly, the distinction between living and dead is not always clear. Most people could tell if they saw a brain-dead and heart-dead person that the person was dead, but the issue becomes much muddier when we consider people who have lost all higher brain function, but retain the small amount of function needed to keep the heart pumping and the lungs working (most likely with the aid of machinery).


I chose to post this in the PCF rather than the SCF because it seems to me that the lines between living and non-living and between living and dead are ones we cannot draw scientifically at this point, because they are ones we cannot test. Something is either living, dead, or non-living. Since we can't clearly define "dead," we can't use killing as a test for "living-ness." This question therefore seems to me to fall into the realm of philosophy, but philosophy that is still very much science.


This question is of great interest to Biologists. I say it is philosophy, only because I believe that for the time being at least, the answer must be found through thought not experiment. To me, that is the line between philosophy and science.


Please, in composing your responses try remember that these are specifically-defined biological terms, and not colloquial ones. Also, please consider the possiblities of testing any hypotheses you put forth. By this I don't mean that all hypotheses must be testable, but rather that if your hypothesis is testable, I would like some sort of idea of what tests could be done.